March 22, 2012
Please Forward this to everyone you know!
Victory! SCR 1005: “Amendments Convention” Defeated in Committee
Thanks to all who sent emails, made calls and especially to those who attended and spoke at the hearing. You made all the difference!
Yesterday, March 20, the House Appropriations Committee voted 7 against and 5 in favor with one passing to defeat SCR 1005.
MESSAGE: Thank you for voting NO on SCR 1005 the Amendments Convention and protecting our Constitution.
Call or Email: THANK Representatives for Voting NO:
Russ Jones: 602-926-3002
Steve Urie: 602-926-4136
Lela Alston: 602-926-5829
Chad Campbell: 602-926-3026
Matt Heinz: 602-926-3424
Ana Tovar: 602-926-3392
Michelle Ugenti: 602-926-4480 (voted “pass” which helped us as much as a NO vote)
EMAILS: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Tom Forese: 602-926-5168
Nancy McLain: 602-926-5051
Justin Olson: 602-926-5288
Vic Williams: 602-926-5839
TWENTY CRITICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT AN “ARTICLE V AMENDMENTS CONVENTION” OR CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION THAT MUST BE ANSWERED
“Occupy Wall Street” endorses Article V—Amendments Convention
http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica1.html This is how an Article V Convention can be hijacked by those with a very different agenda than those who want to limit the federal debt.
Barry Goldwater said: "[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]...We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue."
SCR1005 is a Call for a Constitutional Convention or an “amendments convention” to consider whether an increase in the federal debt should require approval from a majority of the legislatures of the states. Have you witnessed the ferocious battles in Congress over the debt ceiling? Can you imagine what that same battle would entail in a Constitutional Convention which could put our whole Constitution at risk as the “amendments convention” considers multiple versions and multiple amendments?
There is no way provided in Article V of the U.S. Constitution to limit the number of amendments which can be proposed in an “amendments convention,” even if the states, as in SCR1005, try to limit it. Article V states, “Congress…on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…” (that’s amendments in the plural).
The highest authority to ever speak on an amendments convention was Chief Justice Warren Burger. He said, “I have repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda…Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a ‘miracle.’ Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved…” .
Letter from retired Chief Justice Warren Burger opposing a Constitutional Convention, June 22, 1988
More information from Phyllis Schlafly on a Call for a Constitutional Convention: